But in all seriousness, Federer's draw isn't as awful as some make it out. If he's playing well enough to win a slam, he'll win whether he faces Davydenko in the second round or not. If he's playing well enough to beat Murray and Djokovic back-to-back, it doesn't matter who he faces beforehand.

Plus, there's a very large possibility that the draw doesn't pan out the way it looks like it will on paper.

But in all seriousness, Federer's draw isn't as awful as some make it out. If he's playing well enough to win a slam, he'll win whether he faces Davydenko in the second round or not. If he's playing well enough to beat Murray and Djokovic back-to-back, it doesn't matter who he faces beforehand.

Plus, there's a very large possibility that the draw doesn't pan out the way it looks like it will on paper.

Click to expand...

I agree, he's still very likely to make the SF. The only question mark is how quickly his playing level will be up to par, given he hasn't played any warmup tournaments.

For some reason, I get the feeling that this tournament might have a few more suprprises than the recent men's GSs. Not saying a usual suspect won't eventually win it. But I will predict that only one of the top 3 seeds makes it to the semis.

For some reason, I get the feeling that this tournament might have a few more suprprises than the recent men's GSs. Not saying a usual suspect won't eventually win it. But I will predict that only one of the top 3 seeds makes it to the semis.

Click to expand...

That would be refreshing! Personally, I'd love to see a Del Potro-Tsonga semifinal. They're my two favorite players after Federer, but he's won plenty of stuff anyway.

That would be refreshing! Personally, I'd love to see a Del Potro-Tsonga semifinal. They're my two favorite players after Federer, but he's won plenty of stuff anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not hoping for a total change of the guard, Dimitrov/Raonic final--Stephanek/Hewitt would be preferable honestly--but a Ferrer/Delpo/Tsonga/Djokovic (or whoever) semi would at least gives us a little something different.

And they have no business whining about draws either. Look at those stats:

Fed: # of finals without having to play a top 4: 57
- not playing a top 30: 5
- a top 20: 8
- a top 10: 11
- a top 8: 6
- a top 5: 20 (lol)
- a top 4: 7

Djoko: # of finals without having to play a top 4: 19
- a top 30: 5
- a top 20: 3
- a top 10: 4
- a top 8: 2
- a top 5: 4
- a top 4: 1

# of slam finals without having to play a top 4:
Fed: 7
Djoko: 0

# of master finals without having to play a top 4:
Fed: 13
Djoko: 3

# of finals without playing a top 4 per year:
Fed: 2000: 2 out of 2
2001: 3 out of 3
2002: 4 out of 5
2003: 7 out of 9
2004: 5 out of 11
2005: 9 out of 12
2006: 8 out of 16
2007: 5 out of 12
2008: 2 out of 8
2009: 2 out of 7
2010: 3 out of 9
2011: 3 out of 6
2012: 4 out of 10

Djoko:
2006: 3 out of 3
2007: 3 out of 7
2008: 3 out of 7
2009: 4 out of 10
2010: 2 out of 4
2011: 2 out of 11
2012: 2 out of 11

How can they complain about draws after reading those stats
Look how much tougher the competition was in 2011/2012 compared to Fed's prime years (until 2006) when he reached the majority of his finals without having to play a top 4 or a top 5 along the way (opponent in final included).

And they have no business whining about draws either. Look at those stats:

Fed: # of finals without having to play a top 4: 57
- not playing a top 30: 5
- a top 20: 8
- a top 10: 11
- a top 8: 6
- a top 5: 20 (lol)
- a top 4: 7

Djoko: # of finals without having to play a top 4: 19
- a top 30: 5
- a top 20: 3
- a top 10: 4
- a top 8: 2
- a top 5: 4
- a top 4: 1

# of slam finals without having to play a top 4:
Fed: 7
Djoko: 0

# of master finals without having to play a top 4:
Fed: 13
Djoko: 3

# of finals without playing a top 4 per year:
Fed: 2000: 2 out of 2
2001: 3 out of 3
2002: 4 out of 5
2003: 7 out of 9
2004: 5 out of 11
2005: 9 out of 12
2006: 8 out of 16
2007: 5 out of 12
2008: 2 out of 8
2009: 2 out of 7
2010: 3 out of 9
2011: 3 out of 6
2012: 4 out of 10

Djoko:
2006: 3 out of 3
2007: 3 out of 7
2008: 3 out of 7
2009: 4 out of 10
2010: 2 out of 4
2011: 2 out of 11
2012: 2 out of 11

How can they complain about draws after reading those stats
Look how much tougher the competition was in 2011/2012 compared to Fed's prime years (until 2006) when he reached the majority of his finals without having to play a top 4 or a top 5 along the way (opponent in final included).

Click to expand...

D'you even know what a draw means? A draw is NOT, I repeat, NOT who you face in the finals but who you're slated to face before then. Facing a certain player in FINALS is all about how the other half plays out ( and btw, many of those so-called non-top 4 guys [ since when did THAT become a standard?] beat the top 4 guys, including your favourite to reach those finals]. It has NOTHING to do with the draw per se.

I like Murray's draw, the harder the better for him. He thrives on that. He has Federer's number now so I don't see that a problem if he faces Federer in the semis. Del Potro may be his biggest challenge. Hasse may also test him if he starts sluggishly, which he can do. Alternativey, he could come out on fire and lose only a handful of games in the first few rounds.

Federer's draw is the most difficult and I can easily see him falling before the semis. Tomic or Raonic may beat him. I can even see Tsonga getting the better of him.

Djokovic's draw seems to be the easiest. Ferrer will scurry around as usual but be beaten comprehensively. The problem for Djokovic is that he won't be thoroughly tested by the final, which may make the difference between him winning and losing this.

Click to expand...

I am looking forward to Murray-Delpotro. I think it will be a cracker of a match assuming both guys show up close to their best forms.
Fed could lose to Tsonga here, seeing how he lost to Berdych at the USO. I don't think anyone in Djoker's draw can stop him from getting to the finals.

D'you even know what a draw means? A draw is NOT, I repeat, NOT who you face in the finals but who you're slated to face before then. Facing a certain player in FINALS is all about how the other half plays out ( and btw, many of those so-called non-top 4 guys [ since when did THAT become a standard?] beat the top 4 guys, including your favourite to reach those finals]. It has NOTHING to do with the draw per se.

Click to expand...

I see your point but to me the top 4 or 5 players are the hardest to beat, so a player definitely gets a break when he has none of them to overcome for a win (that's why some players win 250 events but cannot win a slam or a master, they just can't bring the goods vs the top guys. )

tipsarevic-hewitt monday night down under...very interesting, the way hewitt's playing and talking...massive pressure on tipsy here

Click to expand...

Definitely a big match Marc but I would favour tipsy. I think Hewitt has been given far more respect and opportunity in kooyong from the likes of berdych del po etc than he will be given this week. Basically I am saying he is not playing as well as he thinks he is! Tipsy in four!

Hmm. I actually can't fight a match that appeals to me tomorrow. Would watch Grigor vs Julien B but there aren't any links on LSH for it. Think I'll watch Goffin vs Verdasco and call it a night. Maybe a bit of Youznhy vs Ebden as well. Long nights ahead so can't burn out too quickly

I see your point but to me the top 4 or 5 players are the hardest to beat, so a player definitely gets a break when he has none of them to overcome for a win (that's why some players win 250 events but cannot win a slam or a master, they just can't bring the goods vs the top guys. )

Click to expand...

Did it ever even occur to you that it could occur because a non-top 4 or top 5 player is playing significantly better than the top 4 or top 5 player he beat and could actually be *gasp* harder to beat in that tournament ..... see gonzalez who ripped through nadal, haas in AO 2007 .... or tsonga who ran through the draw in AO 2008, pummeling nadal along the way .....phillippoussis who served & volleyed his way into the final in wimbledon 2003 etc etc ?

If it was only because the top player was playing badly and the non-top 5 player was not on-fire but just played ok tennis, that would be catching a break .....

Do you think when sampras was facing krajicek in wimbledon 96, he was thinking, oh, he's only the #17 seed ? :lol:

or when nadal was having FHs after FHs flying by him in AO 2007, he was thinking, oh, he's only the #10 seed ? :lol:

or when nadal was having no answers to tsonga's game in AO 2008, he was thinking, oh, he's only the #38 ranked ? :lol:

It is why they all 128 players *actually* play in a slam, not just the top 4 or top 5 ....

This is getting close now, can't wait for it. It's my favourite slam but also the one I see the least of due to the time difference here in Ireland. It basically starts at midnight and runs to midday!! Anyway, for anyone who is interested, I did a blog preview of the mens draw from a slight betting angle if you fancy giving it a read. www.tennisbacker.blogspot.com

Davy had a better shot at Fed 3 years ago after coming off the winning streak where he pretty much ran through the top 8 players at WTF then beat Federer and Nadal back to back at Doha. Yet still he came up short and he hasn't been that consistent ever since.